Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> ... The only way to >> make this sane at all would be to provide user control of which >> operations go to which connections; which is inherent in dblink's API >> but is simply not a concept in the FDW universe. And I don't want to >> try to plaster it on, either.
> This concern would make a lot more sense to me if we were sharing a > given FDW connection between multiple client backends/sessions; I admit > that I've not looked through the code but the documentation seems to > imply that we create one-or-more FDW connection per backend session and > there's no sharing going on. Well, ATM postgres_fdw shares connections across tables and queries; but my point is that that's all supposed to be transparent and invisible to the user. I don't want to have API features that make connections explicit, because I don't think that can be shoehorned into the FDW model without considerable strain and weird corner cases. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers